The point here is to illustrate the divergence in theology of the two parties prior to Constantinople II in order to characterize the traditions up until then. Also, it is to indicate that Constantinople II was not an affirmation (or clarification) of Chalcedon from which the Alexandrian party had diverged but indeed that the Antiochene party had a theology that diverged from before 300AD and returned to something more closely resembling Alexandrine at Constantinople II. Finally, it is a step in clarifying, that in the 4th century, the fathers were not in agreement on the nature of man's reunion with God as set out in separate theological traditions between Athanasius and Gregory.

Severus, in these exchanges, identifies that John's quotes from Cyril in proving that Cyril believed in two natures of Christ were indeed deliberate misquotes in order to make Cyril's theology conform to theirs. From John we see a theology that presents as rather Nestorian and not in agreement with the essence of Constantinople II or modern EO interpretations.

But the most profound is when we read these exchanges after that of the exchanges between John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria and we see that this is an argument that has endured from before their time. The theopoiesis of Athanasius and the theosis of Gregory remained proper to each in each's theologies - they lived and taught at the same time, why did they not use the same terms if the spoke of the same thing? Surely, this would serve to prevent confusion, but instead they deliberately chose to you separate terms in order to identify that they were not speaking of the same thing. But they were much more cordial then, and had a common enemy, Arius, and opted not to discount each other's point of view as was done by their successors; but this does not indicate that they agreed, but rather that they peacefully agreed to disagree. Much of the theology of theosis carries over from Plato and Philo, from which Athanasius spent most of his life trying to distance Christian theology from .

Athansius is remembered as having released Christianity from the shackles of Greek philosophy. He differentiated from the ascension of man up to God, by clarifying and reiterating the God descended to man and that the final reunion with God was theopoiesis. Gregory, Philo and Plato's theosis, was a gradual transformation into what God is. Athanasius' theopoiesis is the projection of God's divinity through us only enabled by our union, much like the transference of magnetism to steel when steel comes in contact with a magnet.

Cyril's and Athanasius' numerous analogies seem to agree seamlessly, which is evidence of the continued tradition that is the Alexandrine tradition. This ultimately was very incompatible with the Greco-theology of the Antiochenes and was developing into a greater rift between the two, of which the schism between Cyril and John was evidence. It is clear, that prior to Constantinople II, Antiochene theology did not agree with that of Athansius and Cyril, despite holding them up as the highest standard. Even to this day, who are the pillars of Eastern Orthodoxy? None of them are Athanasius or Cyril.

Some day a should like to write a thorough dissertation on the subject but currently it exceeds the time I have available. For now I have to get back to work, I will try to dig up some excerpts later this week or next.